Volume 238 — Indiana Reports

1. COURTS — <italic>Jurisdiction — Churches — Ecclesiastical Matters —</italic> <italic>Internal Management — Majority Rule — Property.</italic> — Courts have no jurisdiction over ecclesiastical matters nor the internal management of the affairs of any organization except when personal liberty or some property right is affected. Normally majority rule prevails under our democratic processes and any interested party has a legal right to persuade the majority to accept his views and there can be no legal wrong from such attempts at persuasion. p. 345. 2. COURTS — <italic>Jurisdiction — Churches — Organization — Majority</italic> <italic>Rule — Contracts — Property — Constitutional Law.</italic> — Courts will not interfere in the majority rule of an organization except to protect individuals in their contractual relationships, property rights and liberties in connection therewith. The rights which exist by virtue of the constitution or laws of this state cannot be overridden by a majority rule of any organization, church or otherwise. p. 346. 3. CHURCHES — <italic>Property — Departure from Fundamental Doctrines —</italic> <italic>Majority Rule.</italic> — A court in the case of a church operating by majority rule, will grant relief against the misuse of church property where it has been taken over by a group and a fundamental departure from the original doctrines and faith of the church has been made. Trust property may not be directed to a different use from that for which it was dedicated and the beneficiaries under the trust and church members have a property interest which the law protects. p. 346. 4. EQUITY — <italic>Churches — Property — Departure from Original</italic> <italic>Doctrine.</italic> — Where relief is sought against misuse of church property,<page_number>Page 339</page_number> such church being managed by majority rule, there must be such a substantial departure from the fundamental tenets of the church that a violation of the trust property and a perversion of the property has taken place in order to authorize equitable jurisdiction in granting relief in such a case. p. 347. 5. CHURCHES — <italic>Property — Departure from Original Doctrine —</italic> <italic>Usages, Customs and Principles.</italic> — Appellees contend, in this action which seeks relief against alleged misuse of church property, that for them to prevail in this case it is not essential that there be a departure from "the one and only doctrine or fundamental belief upon which the Church is founded" and instead urge that "the usages, customs, principles and practices which were accepted and adopted by the Church before the division took place, constitute the standard for determining which of the contesting parties is in the right," but the court on appeal rejects such contention as applied to the legal rights of the parties in this case. p. 349. 6. CHURCHES — <italic>Fundamental Requirements for Membership —</italic> <italic>Customs, Practices, Usages and Beliefs.</italic> — In any church there are many customs, practices, usages and beliefs that are not fundamental requirements for membership. p. 350. 7. CHURCHES — <italic>Fundamental Beliefs — Customs, Usages, Practices</italic> <italic>and Beliefs — Findings.</italic> — In the trial court's findings there was no stronger statement with reference to "co-operation" (support of missionary societies) than that such practice was one of those adhered to by the B Christian Church at the time it was established; there was no finding that "co-operation" was a practice upon which the church was founded; the main tenor of the findings is to the effect it was in existence as a practice or usage when the church was founded and not that it was a practice so fundamental that the church was founded upon it; the findings show a liberty of opinions on belief among the members was permitted; and in view of such findings it is the duty of the court on appeal to reconcile them and not draw conclusions which are inconsistent or contradictory with other findings and in view of finding No. 7 which plainly states what are the only essential requirements for membership, "co-operation" is not a fundamental tenet or requirement for membership in B Christian Church. p. 352. 8. CHURCHES — <italic>Fundamental Doctrine — Customs, Usages and</italic> <italic>Practices — Findings.</italic> — A recital in the trial court's findings that certain practices, including "co-operation" were in existence when the church was organized is not the same as a finding that it was an essential and fundamental doctrine upon which the church was founded. p. 352.<page_number>Page 340</page_number> 9. CHURCHES — <italic>Courts — Organization — Fundamental Doctrine —</italic> <italic>Customs, Usages and Practice — Property — Fundamental</italic> <italic>Departure.</italic> — For the court to intermeddle in a church's organization merely because there has been a change in the usages, practices and customs of the church as they existed at the time it was organized, would be officious and totally unwarranted, unless it is shown also that they were requirements for its fellowship and there has been a fundamental departure therefrom and a violation of the trust of the church property. p. 352. 10. CHURCHES — <italic>Departure from Fundamental Doctrine — Findings —</italic> <italic>New and Different Church.</italic> — Finding No. 39, states that the "defendants constitute a new and different church," but such finding does not state that there has been a departure from any fundamental belief of the Church and such statement is nothing more than a conclusion which is contrary to specific findings of fact therein. It has been held in many decisions that a division of opinion over the support of missionary societies, described as "co-operation," is not a matter of fundamental belief and such a difference in views does not "constitute a new and different church." p. 353. 11. THEORY OF CASE — <italic>Churches — Equity — Enforcing</italic> <italic>Ecclesiastical Trust upon Real Estate — Enjoining Minister</italic> <italic>from Serving as Pastor — Judgment at Law — Immediate</italic> <italic>Possession of Real Estate — Evidence — Issues — Misconceiving</italic> <italic>Theory of Action.</italic> — Where the action brought is one in equity to impress and enforce an ecclesiastical trust upon real estate and the complaint does not state that the appellees-plaintiffs were dispossessed, excluded or ousted from the Church, nor does the evidence reveal any ouster, dispossession or exclusion, it is held on appeal that the judgment entered by the trial court, that plaintiffs are entitled to immediate possession of the real estate and a writ of restitution to put plaintiffs in possession of said real estate, is plainly a judgment at law normally rendered in a possessory action or ejectment at law and thus neither the complaint, evidence nor findings of fact support the theory used by the trial court in stating its conclusions of law and in rendering judgment at law. p. 358.